[plt-scheme] Re: to define, or to let

From: Bradd W. Szonye (bradd+plt at szonye.com)
Date: Wed Apr 7 09:22:18 EDT 2004

Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> The iron is on our side, just in case my language doesn't make this
> clear. MzScheme interprets the error raising possibilities as strictly
> as possible.

My apologies if I misunderstood you. I thought you were referring to our
strict interpretation of the R5RS letrec semantics (which I personally
prefer to those in PLT Scheme).

> Otherwise I won't add anything on this topic. Matthew and the rest of
> us make certain choices; we listen to our "customers"; if we think
> they are right we change; if we think their arguments don't convince
> us, we move on and focus our limited resources on those things that
> push this experiment forward.

That's a good attitude, a good way to run a project. I only wish that
more people saw the wisdom in having separate, explicit constructs for
ordered evaluation, unordered (but non-concurrent) evaluation, and
potentially-concurrent evaluation.
Bradd W. Szonye

Posted on the users mailing list.